DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,16, in the submission filed 12/5/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 12/05/2025) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive in view of the amended claims and the new grounds of rejection in view of Fuji et al (embodiment of fig 6,7).
Claims 1-16 are rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,10,11,16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujii teaches (fig 6,7) a reflection structure (plurality of mirrors 3, para 33) comprising
a plurality of mutually connected reflection units (plurality of mirrors 3, para 33),
wherein each of the plurality of reflection units (mirror 3, para 33) has a light reflection surface (reflection surfaces of mirror 3) held in a state of maintaining a fixed angle facing a same direction (inclination angle of mirrors 3 relative to main surface 2a is for example 22.5 deg, para 34, as in fig 6,7).
Regarding Claim 2, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of reflection units includes a reflection member (one of the reflectors 3) including a light reflection surface (reflection surfaces 3a, para 34) on one of both surfaces thereof, and
a reflection member (mirror 3, para 34) including the light reflection surface on each of both surfaces thereof (as in fig 6,7).
a holding member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) that holds the reflection member (one of reflectors 3) in a state of maintaining the angle of the light reflection surface (inclination angle of mirrors 3 relative to main surface 2a is for example 22.5 deg, para 34, as in fig 6,7) to be fixed.
Regarding Claim 3, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 2,
wherein the holding member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) includes a frame member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) provided along a side of a cube or a rectangular parallelepiped (The holding frame has two opposing holding plates 41,41 and connecting plates 42,42, para 35, this forms a rectangular parallelopiped), and
wherein the reflection member (one of mirrors 3, para 34) is held at a fixed angle tilted (inclination angle of mirrors 3 relative to main surface 2a is for example 22.5 deg, para 34, as in fig 6,7 with respect to a surface of the cube or the rectangular parallelepiped (The holding frame has two opposing holding plates 41,41 and connecting plates 42,42, para 35, this forms a rectangular parallelopiped)
Regarding Claim 4, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 3,
wherein the frame member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) has a light-transmitting property (light transmits from the plurality of mirrors to the aerial display element 2, para 34, hence the frame member is transparent).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 3,
wherein a region surrounded by the frame member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) and the reflection member (one of mirrors 3, para 34) is a hollow (there is empty space between mirrors 3 and hence a hollow).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 2,
wherein the holding member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) includes a light-transmitting member (light transmits from the plurality of mirrors to the aerial display element 2, para 34, hence the frame member is transparent) having a shape of a cube or a rectangular parallelepiped (The holding frame has two opposing holding plates 41,41 and connecting plates 42,42, para 35, this forms a rectangular parallelopiped), and
wherein the reflection member (one of mirrors 3, para 34) is embedded in an inside of the light-transmitting member (light transmits from the plurality of mirrors to the aerial display element 2, para 34, hence the frame member is transparent) at a fixed angle tilted (inclination angle of mirrors 3 relative to main surface 2a is for example 22.5 deg, para 34, as in fig 6,7) with respect to a surface of the cube or the rectangular parallelepiped (The holding frame has two opposing holding plates 41,41 and connecting plates 42,42, para 35, this forms a rectangular parallelopiped).
Regarding Claim 11, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of reflection units (plurality of mirrors 3, para 33) are connected together (as in fig 6,7) in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction (connected in x and y directions as in fig 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Fujii teaches (fig 6,7) a visibility control method in which a distance to a visually recognized object (object under observation 4, para 33) is expressed to be longer than an actual distance (“when forming an aerial image at a position far away from the aerial image display element in order to provide an aerial image that is easy for the observer to observe, it is necessary to increase the distance between the aerial image display element and the object to be observed”, para 3), the method comprising:
causing the visually recognized object (object under observation 4, para 33) to be visually recognized through a reflection structure (aerial image display device 1 with reflective surfaces, para 33) comprising
a plurality of mutually connected reflection units (plurality of mirrors 3, para 33) each having a light reflection surface held in a state of maintaining a fixed angle facing a same direction (inclination angle of mirrors 3 relative to main surface 2a is for example 22.5 deg, para 34, as in fig 6,7)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record) in view of Simonsen et al (US 2019/0244432 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 3.
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein the frame member has a light-reflecting property.
Fujii and Simonsen are related as reflective members with frame members.
Simonsen teaches
wherein the frame member has a light-reflecting property (“a number of smaller-size concave semi-transparent reflectors may be assembled, such as mounted together on a metal frame”, para 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame member of Fujii to include a light reflecting property of Simonsen for the purpose of mounting together reflectors in a mixed reality system (para 1).
Claim(s) 7,12,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record) in view of Suchowski et al (US 2019/0310441 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 3.
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein, in the frame member, a part extending along a side of a portion of the cube or the rectangular parallelepiped is omitted.
Fujii and Suchowski are related as frame members.
Suchowski (fig 10) teaches
wherein, in the frame member (grid, para 323), a part extending along a side of a portion of the cube or the rectangular parallelepiped is omitted (“a platform may include an opening”, para 344).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame member of Fujii to omit a part of frame member of Suchowski for the purpose of allowing a light beam and/or burst to pass therethrough (para 344).
Regarding Claim 12, Suchowski teaches the reflection structure according to claim 11.
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein the plurality of reflection units are connected together in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction.
Fujii and Suchowski are related as reflections.
Suchowski teaches (fig 10)
wherein the plurality of reflection units (mirrors 1018a-1018f, para 345) are connected together in a third direction (z direction) intersecting both the first direction and the second direction (x and y direction as in fig 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of the reflection units of Fujii to be connected in a third direction of Suchowski for the purpose of a three-dimensional light path (para 349).
Regarding Claim 14, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 1.
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein the plurality of reflection units are connected together such that parts that differ from each other in length of a path of light that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units are formed.
Fujii and Suchowski are related as reflections.
Suchowski teaches
wherein the plurality of reflection units (mirrors 1318d and 1318g, mirrors 1318f and 1318k, para 357) are connected together such that parts that differ from each other in length of a path of light that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units are formed (path length of light through mirrors 1318d and 1318g is different from the path length through mirrors 1318f and 1318k).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of the reflection units of Fujii to be connected in a third direction of Suchowski for the purpose of a modular three-dimensional optical setup (para 2).
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 3,
wherein the frame member (frame shaped holding frame 40, para 35) includes a rod-like part extending along a side of the cube or the rectangular parallelepiped (The holding frame has two opposing holding plates 41,41 and connecting plates 42,42, para 35, this forms a rectangular parallelopiped), the rod-like part having a rectangular shape (fig 7).
However, Fujii does not teach
the rod-like part having a triangular prism shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to the rod-like part having a triangular prism shape since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of triangular prism for the purpose of a stable and strong support structure.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record) in view of Naya et al (US 2017/0010451 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujiii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 1,
However, Fujii does not teach
further comprising: a cover member that covers a surface of at least part of the plurality of reflection units.
Fujii and Naya are related as reflection members.
Naya teaches (fig 19)
further comprising:
a cover member (reflection plate 78, para 125) that covers a surface of at least part of the plurality of reflection units (optical element 1 with reflective elements 13a to 13d, para 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflection structure of Fujii to include the cover member of Naya for the purpose of covering the structure (para 125).
Claim(s) 13, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (JP 2019-105724 A, of record) in view of Ji et al (US 10,688,930 A, of record).
Regarding Claim 13, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 1,
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein the plurality of reflection units are connected together such that an incident position and an emission position of light that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units coincide with each other.
Fujii and Ji are related as reflection members.
Ji teaches (fig 1B)
wherein the plurality of reflection units (reflection boundaries 110,120,130,140, col 7, lines 32-36) are connected together such that an incident position and an emission position of light (incident path 1a, col 11) and that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units (reflected light 9a, col 12) coincide with each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflection member of Fujii to include the connection of Ji for the purpose of a see through capability reducing blind spots (col 1, lines 15-22).
Regarding Claim 15, Fujii teaches the reflection structure according to claim 2.
However, Fujii does not teach
wherein at least one of a wire, a desiccant, and a flame-retardant material is housed in an invisible region through which light that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units does not pass, the invisible region being surrounded by a plurality of the reflection members.
Fujii and Ji are related as reflection members.
Ji teaches (fig 1A, 1B)
wherein at least one of a wire, a desiccant, and a flame-retardant material (object is housed in an invisible region (cloaked region CR, col 5, lines 53-65) through which light that passes through an inside of the plurality of reflection units (reflection boundaries 110, 120 and 130, 140, col 6, lines 26-30) does not pass, the invisible region being (cloaked region CR) surrounded by a plurality of the reflection members (reflection boundaries 110,120,130,140, col 7, lines 32-36) (as in fig 1A, B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of reflection units of Fujii to include an invisible region of Ji for the purpose of a see through capability reducing blind spots (col 1, lines 15-22).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/11/2026